Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

Here is the transcript of the July 25 hearing:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/july_25_2011_conti_vecchiotti_transcript.pdf

Thanks!

Interesting how much of the presentation concerned the actions of scientifica at the crime scene and the huge number of their errors under command of Steffi.

Looks like miss Comodi lost her temper and was trying to interrupt the presentation and start a fight with the experts

Can't wait for a transcript of the questions session..

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks!

Interesting how much of the presentation concerned the actions of scientifica at the crime scene and the huge number of their errors under command of Steffi.

Looks like miss Comodi lost her temper and was trying to interrupt the presentation and start a fight with the experts

Can't wait for a transcript of the questions session..

Same here, thanks Charlie.

 

[LondonJohn]

Finally, please to avoid any *confusion* refer to the originating post about the flowers and please note that the sole subject was indeed "what the flowers were made of"

Actually, this was the originating post that re-started the discussion about the flowers. Please note that the subject had nothing whatsoever to do with "what the flowers were made of":

As a continuation, it appears that the owner of the girls' cottage has had ongoing problems in renting the property, owing to its gruesome association with Meredith's murder. I'm sure the owner is therefore somewhat less than happy to find crime tourists casing the cottage to take multiple photographs (even trespassing onto - and inside - the property to snoop around) and placing memorials on the gate. That must help enormously......

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

OK, I shouldn't have posted that. Deleted.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Forgive me if I fail to grasp the relationship of these two above 'arguments' to the main events of the case such as ToD, timelines, etcccc that many here seem to always challenge each and every guilt believing poster to concentrate on.

However , I can grasp the arguments' more obvious ad homs directed to a particularly effective and deeply resented past poster favoring guilt, and with decimating accuracy arguing same here many months ago.
But SA is no longer even active in any way on this Board.
I as well grasp other associated sundry borderline off topic pet peeves mentioned yet again in the arguments.

Additionally, I hasten to yield to the poster's frequently acknowledged expertise on the topic of "insane rants:" that he refers us to to in his... 'argument'.

Finally, please to avoid any *confusion* refer to the originating post about the flowers and please note that the sole subject was indeed "what the flowers were made of"

You are the only one here that reports "off topic" posts so feel free.

It appears to me that you are here fishing so you can bring home the big catch to those you wish to impress.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my last post. The materials used to construct the flowers are only mentioned due to the fact that SomeAlibi went ballistic when the flowers were allegedly misrepresented, not because anyone actually cares what they are made of.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks!

Interesting how much of the presentation concerned the actions of scientifica at the crime scene and the huge number of their errors under command of Steffi.

Looks like miss Comodi lost her temper and was trying to interrupt the presentation and start a fight with the experts

Can't wait for a transcript of the questions session..

And this is exactly how Sfarzo and most of the neutral press journalists reported the situation. The session was essentially supposed to be an unrebutted presentation by Conti and Vecchiotti to explain their report to the court. Their examination/questioning was always slated to take place at the two further court sessions planned for that week.

But Comodi couldn't stop herself. Clearly primed for action by Ms Stefanoni, Comodi kept interrupting with increasingly provocative and argumentative interjections. Eventually, Hellmann literally slammed his hand onto the table and shouted at Comodi to shut up.

And I think it's very instructive that the bulk of the Conti/Vecchiotti presentation on July 25th concerned the dreadful work carried out by the scene of crime investigators - AKA the "crack" forensics team. Their improper and sloppy procedures and actions at the crime scene totally compromised the investigation from the very start. We can only be thankful that a video recording of this shockingly inept performance survived, and can be used as hard evidence of the incompetence employed in the crime scene analysis. Ms Stefanoni was - for some reason which is itself improper - the head of this crime scene analysis team. She set the tone for the dreadful mistakes that occurred under her command.

The video evidence proves that virtually every piece of evidence collected from the cottage has either been rendered worthless or significantly compromised through the way in which it was identified, handled and collected right at the start of the investigation. Therefore everything that was done to the forensic evidence after that point (storage, re-handling, testing, interpretation) was done with specimens that were at best already badly compromised. The fact that further basic errors took place in these further stages only adds to the overall picture of ineptitude and incompetence (and confirmation bias in the later stages of the analysis). But the GIGO ("Garbage In: Garbage Out") principle suggests that even if the subsequent stages of analysis had been conducted properly, the results would still have been unreliable owing to the massive malpractice at the very beginning.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

OK, I shouldn't have posted that. Deleted.

No worries, Pilot already delivered it to the mother ship before you deleted it.

It's quite disturbing that Pilot refers to himself as another poster:

"Charlie/Jim put this out as a reply to a pesky persistent guilt poster who apparently had struck some tender nerves by showing Brucie and Looney how particularly irrational their diatribes are today."

 

[christianahannah]

And this is exactly how Sfarzo and most of the neutral press journalists reported the situation. The session was essentially supposed to be an unrebutted presentation by Conti and Vecchiotti to explain their report to the court. Their examination/questioning was always slated to take place at the two further court sessions planned for that week.

But Comodi couldn't stop herself. Clearly primed for action by Ms Stefanoni, Comodi kept interrupting with increasingly provocative and argumentative interjections. Eventually, Hellmann literally slammed his hand onto the table and shouted at Comodi to shut up.

And I think it's very instructive that the bulk of the Conti/Vecchiotti presentation on July 25th concerned the dreadful work carried out by the scene of crime investigators - AKA the "crack" forensics team. Their improper and sloppy procedures and actions at the crime scene totally compromised the investigation from the very start. We can only be thankful that a video recording of this shockingly inept performance survived, and can be used as hard evidence of the incompetence employed in the crime scene analysis. Ms Stefanoni was - for some reason which is itself improper - the head of this crime scene analysis team. She set the tone for the dreadful mistakes that occurred under her command.

The video evidence proves that virtually every piece of evidence collected from the cottage has either been rendered worthless or significantly compromised through the way in which it was identified, handled and collected right at the start of the investigation. Therefore everything that was done to the forensic evidence after that point (storage, re-handling, testing, interpretation) was done with specimens that were at best already badly compromised. The fact that further basic errors took place in these further stages only adds to the overall picture of ineptitude and incompetence (and confirmation bias in the later stages of the analysis). But the GIGO ("Garbage In: Garbage Out") principle suggests that even if the subsequent stages of analysis had been conducted properly, the results would still have been unreliable owing to the massive malpractice at the very beginning.

Well Comodi didn't interrupt continually (her interruptions come after an afternoon recess) and it appears the interrupting had to do with information the prosecution felt they didn't have at hand.

It is funny how Hellmann allows the questioning/interruption of Comodi (and Maresca earlier) to go on for a bit before asking for silence. But in the end Comodi agrees to follow the Court's recommendation, the prosecution eventually gets the information it seeks and all is good.

As for an unrebutted presentation given by experts in court I doubt this will ever happen (especially in this case). Attorneys for both sides wouldn't be doing their job if they let anything they disagreed with or were unsure of pass without comment.

 

[Justinian2]

No one has complained about roses being left for Meredith. The entire discussion about the flowers comes from the actions of the person that left them. Comments are directed at his tirade, not his good deed.

If I left flowers no one would know I left flowers because I wouldn't make an issue out of it. If I created a website to preserve the memory of a murder victim I would make sure the site celebrated that person's life, I wouldn't use the victim's tragedy as a front to spew hate but that's just me.

I agree. I think it's good to leave flowers to commemorate the loss of a love one. A motorcyclist died in a collision with a car about two years ago only two blocks from where I live. They left flowers, pictures and candles there for two years. Then it stopped, presumably so they could move on with their lives.

Usually you don't see hate spewed at memorials. Ever see hate or political signs at the Vietnam memorial or, for that matter, any other memorial? Perhaps people in mourning don't want to cheapen the memory with hate and anger.

Perhaps the people that mix hate with a memorial either aren't sincere or don't know what a logical fallacy is.

It's always touching when people leave flowers to mourn for the loss of a loved one. It's touching that flowers were left for Meredith, but that doesn't mean Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Well Comodi didn't interrupt continually (her interruptions come after an afternoon recess) and it appears the interrupting had to do with information the prosecution felt they didn't have at hand.

Not exactly, that was before the recess. After the short break the experts began a methodical review of scientifica methods as recorded on video. That sparked Comodi's outburst. She protested that it's outside of scope of what the court asked.

It is funny how Hellmann allows the questioning/interruption of Comodi (and Maresca earlier) to go on for a bit before asking for silence. But in the end Comodi agrees to follow the Court's recommendation, the prosecution eventually gets the information it seeks and all is good.

Yes she agrees to follow the court recommendation to shut up I don't see any information seeking there, TBH. Finally Hellmann instructs the experts to answer only to his questions, and disregard her.

 

[Justinian2]

Thanks!

Interesting how much of the presentation concerned the actions of scientifica at the crime scene and the huge number of their errors under command of Steffi.

Looks like miss Comodi lost her temper and was trying to interrupt the presentation and start a fight with the experts

Can't wait for a transcript of the questions session..

It seems like the Friends of Amanda site has been telling the truth all along.

It seems like the Friends of Mignini sites have been telling the truth all along abouth the little things and getting the big things wrong or connecting the dots wrong or, making connections to imaginary dots.

 

[RoseMontague]

Not exactly, that was before the recess. After the short break the experts began a methodical review of scientifica methods as recorded on video. That sparked Comodi's outburst. She protested that it's outside of scope of what the court asked.


Yes she agrees to follow the court recommendation to shut up I don't see any information seeking there, TBH. Finally Hellmann instructs the experts to answer only to his questions, and disregard her.

Somebody sure has shut up Mignini lately. I wonder if he will say anything during the next hearing.

 

[christianahannah]

Not exactly, that was before the recess. After the short break the experts began a methodical review of scientifica methods as recorded on video. That sparked Comodi's outburst. She protested that it's outside of scope of what the court asked.

You are correct the recess was late morning for a brief time. And yes, Conti began to examine the scientifica methods of November 3, 2007 on DVD which Comodi does indeed object to. And as Conti continues, his presentation doesn't paint too flattering a picture of the forensic collection methods of the scientifica polizia.

Yes she agrees to follow the court recommendation to shut up I don't see any information seeking there, TBH. Finally Hellmann instructs the experts to answer only to his questions, and disregard her.

That is progress, rarely have the attorneys in this case agreed to silence. Didn't Hellmann ask Comodi to vet any questions through him rather than to the experts directly?

 

[JREF2010]

Not exactly, that was before the recess. After the short break the experts began a methodical review of scientifica methods as recorded on video. That sparked Comodi's outburst. She protested that it's outside of scope of what the court asked.


Yes she agrees to follow the court recommendation to shut up I don't see any information seeking there, TBH. Finally Hellmann instructs the experts to answer only to his questions, and disregard her.

Did this document include Hellman rejecting the attempt at submitting the controls, as Frank reported. The wrong coded papers pr something like that?

This is really interesting and thanks for discussing it as you read it.

 

[theRealBob]

Glad to see you drop the 3 traces of Meredith's blood in Amanda's room. I am curious about the call between Amanda and Filomena. What in their conversation shows evidence of guilt in your opinion?

The calls to Filomena's phone seem to have always been interpreted (on Guilter sites) as three seconds.... ringing - then no answer....four seconds ringing - then no answer.

My opinion on the logging of call times is that it is the period after the call is acknowledged and received that provides the call duration. In these instances that would be Amanda hearing a recorded answering message.

 

[theRealBob]

Somebody sure has shut up Mignini lately. I wonder if he will say anything during the next hearing.

I was posting on these forums before the appeal began that I think Hellman has gone against the usual court procedure in re-appointing Mignini because he wants his ridiculous case belittled with our dearly loved prosecutor (by TJFMW) roasted in full public view.


Seems to be working too...

 

[bucketoftea]

Oh dear.

As I've said before, any references to "communications engineered" arguments will be met by return with references to "simpleton farmer" arguments. So there's a simple solution, isn't there?

Anyhow, regarding the case itself, do you think that the Luminol blobs - or even the one recognisable footprint - are in any way attributable to Knox? And do you think that the improper "smearing" way in which the specimen swabs were collected in the small bathroom has totally negated their evidential worth? And what about the bathmat partial print? Do you think it can be positively attributed to Sollecito, and/or excluded as Guede?

ETA: There is a huge difference between leaving floral tributes in public places or specially-designated places (and usually very soon after the event) and fixing floral tributes to the gate of a private residential property three years after the event. But if you can provide other examples of total strangers leaving memorials three years after the event - whether in a public place or a private property - that would be interesting.

Yes I'm late to your little hate party, LJ, but couldn't pass without condemning your attack on someone for expressing finer human feelings in a way that would offend no normal person. You must have examples? Bah! You're not engaging your higher self here.

It's despicable to pick a fight over a gesture of remembrance.

Three cheers for Some Alibi!!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

your cup runneth over

bucketoftea,

Now that you are here, would you mind attending to the many questions that have been put to you? Thank you.

 

[bucketoftea]

No one has complained about roses being left for Meredith. The entire discussion about the flowers comes from the actions of the person that left them. Comments are directed at his tirade, not his good deed.

If I left flowers no one would know I left flowers because I wouldn't make an issue out of it. If I created a website to preserve the memory of a murder victim I would make sure the site celebrated that person's life, I wouldn't use the the victim's tragedy as a front to spew hate but that's just me.

Brucie, you misunderstand. Some Alibi shared the photo of his lovely silk flowers because he generously dedicated it as from TJMK and PMF, and we're all glad he did.

Did the convicts or their families leave any tribute to Meredith? Ever?

 

[bucketoftea]

bucketoftea,

Now that you are here, would you mind attending to the many questions that have been put to you? Thank you.

No . Too late for flowers? Too late for your stupid questions!